To sleep or to breastfeed: Associations between feeding method and sleep in infants and children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to understand the association between feeding method, specifically breastfeeding versus non-breastfeeding, at 6 and 12 months and infant sleep over the first 3 years of life. METHODS: A sample of 444 mother-infant dyads from the Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment cohort were analysed. Based on retrospective maternal reports between 3-24 months, infants' breastfeeding status was determined at 6 and 12 months. Nocturnal sleep duration, longest period of consecutive sleep, and total sleep over 24 h were measured by maternal reports at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. RESULTS: Generalized Estimating Equations revealed no significant association between feeding status, both at 6 and 12 months, and nocturnal sleep duration or total sleep over 24 h between 6-36 months (p > 0.05). However, breastfeeding at both 6 and 12 months was associated with shorter periods of consecutive sleep, at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.05) but not at 24 and 36 months (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that breastfeeding seems to be associated with more infant sleep fragmentation but not with total sleep duration in early infancy. However, this sleep fragmentation does not persist into later infancy and early toddlerhood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".